Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Was Nick Foles A Bad Fit For Philly? & other Foles speculations
- This topic has 15 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
snowman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 25, 2015 at 8:39 am #27552
znModeratorWas Nick Foles A Bad Fit For Philly?
By Tim McManus
http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/07/23/was-nick-foles-a-bad-fit-for-philly/
The topic of whether Nick Foles had the right temperament to play in Philadelphia was introduced by The Inquirer‘s Jeff McLane Wednesday during an appearance on 97.5 The Fanatic.
“Nick, I think, wasn’t very comfortable in that role [of a franchise quarterback], especially in Philadelphia,” he said. “I think there probably wasn’t as much written about that [as there should’ve been] and I’ve kind of learned a few things since Nick has been gone, that it had really gotten to him, some of the criticism that was happening here in Philadelphia based on his play last season and I don’t think Bradford is the type of guy where he lets that type of stuff get to him.”
Louis Riddick, who was a part of the Eagles’ front office when Foles was drafted, joined the morning show Thursday and was asked for his take.
“My experience with Nick is that he was very even-keel, very mellow, very much so not affected by a lot of outside things, but more…I’ve talked with people directly that were with him every day and coached him, and he was the kind of guy who behind the scenes didn’t necessarily like being criticized, didn’t necessarily like maybe being coached hard, being gotten on in the way that some quarterbacks and some players can take,” he said. “So is it surprising that maybe he would fit in a little bit better in a town like St. Louis where, not necessarily that they don’t have high expectations, but it’s not the same kind of scrutiny he’ll face here in Philadelphia? Yeah, that doesn’t shock me. That doesn’t shock me that he would feel more comfortable there.
“You’ve gotta be different, man. You’ve gotta be different in a good way in order to thrive here.”
Foles “occasionally butted heads” with quarterbacks coach Bill Lazor “over the coach’s intensity,” per a 2014 Inquirer report. It didn’t impact the on-field product, though, as Foles threw for 27 and 2 during his lone season with Lazor.
“I’m not saying he didn’t like it, but there are certain guys that you have to coach and approach in a certain way in order for them to really then respond the next series, the next practice, the next game, the next season, whatever is next for them,” said Riddick. “From what I can gather, Nick isn’t a guy who really wants you berating him and getting on him.
“It’s not to say that Nick is weak mentally. I like Nick and wound up liking Nick as a player a lot more than I initially did when he came out of college, because I was not very high on him. As I’ve said before, Andy Reid was the guy who really liked Nick Foles and he’s the one that solely deserves credit for him being drafted in Philadelphia. But there’s better fits for different players in different cities and St. Louis sounds like — even from what Nick had said — sounds like a place where he feels as though he can thrive, so we’ll see.”
Even so, Riddick is not totally on board with the team’s decision to deal Foles to St. Louis for Sam Bradford.
“From the outside looking in, is it a substantial risk? Of course it is. Because I don’t care how much talent Sam has in his arm and how much talent Sam has between his ears, the fact of the matter is his durability is a huge, gigantic red flag flying across the middle of the sky being pulled by a 747. It’s as big as it gets.
“So would I have traded for someone like that? My first inclination is to say no, because I am very much so one of those people who believe that guys who have an injury history before are going to have an injury history after; it’s hard for them to shake it…Would I have done it for Sam? No. Do I criticize [Chip Kelly] for getting rid of Nick and wanting to upgrade the position? No I don’t, either because I would have probably wanted to do that, too. But it was just who he did it for.”
The entire interview is worth a listen and can be found here.
July 26, 2015 at 9:48 am #27586znModeratorBernie: Foles could be the answer for Rams — or not
By Bernie Miklasz
Here’s one of the worst things about the constant huffing and puffing over the Rams, St. Louis, Stan Kroenke, Los Angeles, Gov. Nixon, the Edward Jones Dome, the STL stadium task force, NFL relocation guidelines, the proposed stadium on the north riverfront, Peacock & Blitz, Roger Goodell, the San Diego Chargers, the Oakland Raiders, Carson, and Inglewood (always up to no good) …
I don’t talk about Rams football anymore.
You know: the game on the field.
Not the game of Monopoly.
I’ve been so hopelessly distracted by STL vs. LA and the Battle for Los Angeles, I’ve struggled to keep up with the football stuff.
So let’s talk about the Rams’ 2015 training camp, shall we?
Hey, I know you’ve heard me say this before, but I’m confident this is the year that quarterback Sam Bradford finally puts it all together for the Rams.
The Rams just needed to surround Bradford with more talent. And the free-agent signing of left offensive tackle Jake Long should keep Bradford upright and healthy.
Plus, this will be Bradford’s fourth season working with offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, and the continuity will make a positive difference.
Know what I mean?
What’s that?
Bradford was traded to Philadelphia for quarterback Nick Foles, and “Schotty” no longer works for the Rams? Jake Long was released in a salary-cap move?
Oh.
Let’s talk about Foles, then. I’ll stop kidding around.
On a serious note, the Rams open camp Friday. And there’s so much to keep an eye on this summer, including the surgically repaired left knee of rookie running back Todd Gurley. And watch out for that herd of mammoth rookie offensive linemen.
But Foles is the most intriguing player in camp.
Since the Rams’ last winning season (2003), they’ve used 14 starting quarterbacks: Marc Bulger, Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill, Jamie Martin, Chris Chandler, Kyle Boller, Keith Null, A.J. Feeley, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Gus Frerotte, Brock Berlin and Trent Green.
Foles is next in line.
What will become of him?
Eligible to become an unrestricted free agent after the season, Foles could be passing through town, one and done. Or he could take the job, own it, and provide the long-term stability that’s been missing since Bulger started 80 of a possible 96 regular-season games between 2002 and 2008.
No doubt, the constant churn at a critically important position is a factor in the Rams’ .327 winning percentage over the past 11 seasons.
With many NFL franchises, the big quarterback question at this time of the year pertains to quality: Can the talented QB lead the team to the playoffs and win a Super Bowl?
In St. Louis, with so many quarterback injuries, benchings, recycling jobs and coaching changes, the key question is much different: Do the Rams even have a QB?
In evaluating Foles, you can pretty much see what you want to see.
Hey, this is the quarterback who threw 27 touchdown passes and only two interceptions for Philadelphia in 2013. Foles was voted to the Pro Bowl, the dazzling Eagles averaged 28 points per game, went 10-6, and made the NFC playoffs.
Wow, 27 touchdowns and two pickoffs? And average of 9.1 yards per passing attempt? A passer rating of 119.2? When Kurt Warner was the pride of St. Louis, orchestrating the Greatest Show on Turf, he never had a passer rating higher than 109.2 in a season. Foles is no Warner, but he could be the best quarterback here since Bulger went to the Pro Bowl after passing for 4,301 yards in 2006.
No, no, no. Foles is a one-year wonder who crashed in 2014. Foles passed for only 13 touchdowns, lobbed too many interceptions (10), held the ball too long, took too many hits, suffered a fractured collarbone, and was abruptly cast aside by Eagles coach Chip Kelly.
Given Kelly’s obsession with offense, and his quarterback-friendly attack, why did he give up on Foles so quickly? What does that tell us? Not only that, but Kelly flipped Foles to St. Louis to gamble on Bradford. Yeah, the iron-man Bradford that missed 25 of the Rams’ previous 32 games because of two knee surgeries.
Hold on, now. Why the negativity? Foles made a great impression right away. His new teammates rave about him. The Rams have embraced Nick as the leader they’ve been waiting for.
“The chemistry has been great since day one,” wide receiver Kenny Britt told reporters. “He’s the guy that comes in the locker room and pumps people up ready to go. If you’re down, he’s the first one (saying) ‘Hey come on, we’ve gotta go right now.’ To tell you the truth, it’s kind of exciting to see him in there.”
Tight end Jared Cook co-signed the endorsement. “I’m so glad that he’s here. I love that he’s here,” Cook told the team’s web site. “I love what he brings to us, and I love the fact that he’s just an up-tempo, positive guy.”
Love was definitely in the air at Rams Park.
“Great deep ball,” Britt said. “He puts it on the money every time. He can throw every pass in the book.”
That’s nice.
As you might imagine, the opinions in Philadelphia aren’t so nice.
In a recent interview with a Philadelphia radio station, former Eagles scout Louis Riddick described an alternative version of Foles.
“I’ve talked with people directly that were with him every day and coached him, and he was the kind of guy who behind the scenes didn’t necessarily like being criticized, didn’t necessarily like maybe being coached hard, being gotten on in the way that some quarterbacks and some players can take,” Riddick said.
“So is it surprising that maybe he would fit in a little bit better in a town like St. Louis where, not necessarily that they don’t have high expectations, but it’s not the same kind of scrutiny he’ll face here in Philadelphia? Yeah, that doesn’t shock me. That doesn’t shock me that he would feel more comfortable there.”
Speaking to ESPN’s Mike Sando, one anonymous NFL head coach said he’d be delighted to have Foles … at No. 2 on the depth chart.
“You wish he was your backup because he could go win some games for you,” the coach said. “But I wouldn’t want him to be my starter.”
This is confusing, yes?
Foles is either (1) a natural-born leader of men who puts every throw on the money; or (2) he’s thin-skinned, can’t take the heat, couldn’t wait to duck behind the low expectations in St. Louis and is no better than a good backup.
I’m neutral for now. I like Foles’ potential, but he could go either way.
Foles could be the answer, the solution, the missing piece. Or he could go missing, like the many Rams quarterbacks that have come and gone.
July 26, 2015 at 2:18 pm #27601znModeratorfrom off the net
==
NotaKellyfan (Eagles fan)
All I am attempting to do is add context for those of you that did not see Foles play.
Chip Kelly never wanted Foles as his QB. He made a big deal of talking about how he didn’t need particular types of players, but he went out of his way to show otherwise. He gave the job to Vick, who struggled. Kelly never put him in front of Vick. Kelly chose Vick and only put Foles in when Vick inevitably got hurt. Foles came in the second half of the Giants game in 2013 and led the team to its second victory. Foles then lit up the BUCs scoring 4 TDs (one rushing) and Chip wouldn’t commit. Foles then got concussed and had a horrid game against the Cowboys. Vick came back and got hurt again against the Giants, giving Kelly no choice but to play him. Foles then threw 7 TDS and made it impossible to bench him.
My point being, I don’t believe Kelly ever wanted Foles as his guy and he was pretty much forced into it. It is true that Foles started over Sanchez, but I don’t think Foles left him much of a choice.
Last year, Foles struggled but it was not solely his fault. Foles was playing behind a makeshift line for much of his time. Lane Johnson was suspended for the first four games. So the Eagles swung Todd Herremans out of his RG spot to RT. Evan Mathis, the LG, went down with an injury in week one. Jason Kelce, the starting Center, went down with an injury in week 3. The week 4 starting line, the week the Eagles played the 49ers, was Jason Peters at LT, Matt Tobin at LG, David Molk at C, Dennis Kelly at RG and Todd Herremans at RT. Like Foles, Herremans got hurt against the Texans. Kelce came back the week prior and Mathis came back for Sanchez’s first start. Sanchez had the benefit of 4/5ths of the line for his entire tenure.
I truly believe he was more injured than they revealed in the Washington game. I think that may have also led to Foles’ having some mistrust in the OL.
Lesean McCoy struggled mightily at certain points giving less than 20 rushing yards in two different games. Teams were rushing four guys and dropping into coverage because they were facing three, or in some cases, four backup linemen and able to get pressure.
Another difference between 2014 and 2013 was the change in QB coach. The new coach emphasized getting the ball out quickly and not taking sacks, Foles had taken 28 sacks in 10.5 games in 2013. Foles actually did very well avoiding sacks after the first half of the first game, he had taken five sacks and turned it over three times in that half. He took only 4 sacks in the next 6.75 games, but had 10 turnovers in that span.
Also, Foles’ 2014 numbers look worse thanks in large part to a game and a half of bad football against the 49ers, a week after being injured against Washington, and the first half against the Jaguars. Foles’ was 32/64 for 331 yards, 3 INTs, 2 fumbles, 6 sacks and a 45.8 QB rating in that stretch. In Foles other games he took only three sacks despite heavy pressure and was 154/247 for 1,832 yards, 13 TDs, 7 INTs, 1 fumble and 90.7 QB Rating. The team was also averaging 33 points per game with him in those games.
Of course it would be illogical to pretend those six quarters never happened as they did, but it should come as some comfort that he wasn’t mediocre all year. He simply had a bad stretch which made his season mediocre.
His deep accuracy was a struggle last year, but that was partially because of a lack of chemistry with his WRs. Maclin was hurt for much of training camp and Kelly had Matthews working with the backups instead of Foles. Meanwhile Riley Cooper’s play dropped off a cliff and the line issues factored in as well. That said, I don’t think many questioned his accuracy either.
His decision making was questionable last season, but again I think the offensive line should be considered. The injury probably factored in a little bit too.
I am not trying to excuse all of Foles’ problems last year. He did have struggles. Several of his interceptions left me surprised and the fumble against the Rams had me highly irritated. Foles did fall into a phantom pressure mode after the first month or so. He would fade backwards to avoid pressure and end up rushing a throw, which IMO came from the new QB coach attempting to force quicker decisions. I have said before I believe the phantom pressure may have had something to do with the late hit against the Redskins where I believe he was actually hurt.
Foles’ release is slower than Bradford’s. That was a definite question mark. It’s also fair game to question his deep accuracy though I would again point to the circumstances.
But all told, The Eagles were in every game with Foles even the 49ers game where he did not play well in the least. He kept the team within reach and threw what could have been a gamewinning TD if Riley Cooper had hung onto the ball. Against the Cardinals Foles threw a last second pass into the endzone which would have won the game, but Jordan Matthews could not stay in bounds.
I think he is legitimately capable of being a top ten QB and he should improve your team. I was honestly expecting Andy Reid to make another attempt at trading for him.
July 26, 2015 at 10:04 pm #27612znModeratorNick Foles couldn’t handle pressure from Eagles’ fans; can Sam Bradford?
http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/07/nick_foles_couldnt_handle_pressure_from_eagles_fan_1.html
It’s no secret that the Eagles are looking for a franchise quarterback.
At times, Nick Foles looked to be that guy, as he led the Eagles to the 2013 NFC East championship, and went 15-10 in two seasons with head coach Chip Kelly.
Off the field, however, it appears that Foles might not have been ready for the spotlight of Philadelphia — and that could be why he is in St. Louis.
Speaking on 97.5 the Fanatic (via Birds 24/7) Philadelphia Inquirer’s Jeff McLane had this to say about Foles, and his ability to handle the pressure of being “the guy” in Philadelphia.
“Nick, I think, wasn’t very comfortable in that role [of a franchise quarterback], especially in Philadelphia,” he said. “I think there probably wasn’t as much written about that [as there should’ve been] and I’ve kind of learned a few things since Nick has been gone, that it had really gotten to him, some of the criticism that was happening here in Philadelphia based on his play last season and I don’t think Bradford is the type of guy where he lets that type of stuff get to him.”
McLane isn’t the only one to recently point out Foles’ off-the-field problems with the spotlight.
Here is what Louis Riddick, a former member of the Eagles’ front office, had to say about Foles in an interview on 97.5 The Fanatic:
“My experience with Nick is that he was very even-keel, very mellow, very much so not affected by a lot of outside things, but more…I’ve talked with people directly that were with him every day and coached him, and he was the kind of guy who behind the scenes didn’t necessarily like being criticized, didn’t necessarily like maybe being coached hard, being gotten on in the way that some quarterbacks and some players can take. So is it surprising that maybe he would fit in a little bit better in a town like St. Louis where, not necessarily that they don’t have high expectations, but it’s not the same kind of scrutiny he’ll face here in Philadelphia? Yeah, that doesn’t shock me. That doesn’t shock me that he would feel more comfortable there.”
Whether Foles truly was able to handle the spotlight is, at this point, almost irrelevant.
The question is, can Bradford?
As Bradford will find out, the pressure to preform in Philadelphia will be far more intense than it was in St. Louis. Even as the former No. 1 overall pick, Bradford will face more pressure than he ever has in his career this season.
If he doesn’t live up to the expectations of Eagles’ fans, Bradford will certainly hear it.
And if he can’t handle it, he could find himself in a similar situation to Foles this time next year — out of Philadelphia.
—–
Eagles players said Nick Foles let criticism negatively impact him
Nick Foles is a tough quarterback. His gritty performance against the Washington Redskins in Week 3 last season is a reminder of this fact. But maybe his mental toughness doesn’t match his physical toughness.
At least, that’s what Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer seemed to suggest during a radio appearance with Anthony Gargano and Jon Marks on 97.5 The Fanatic on Wednesday morning. Transcription via Crossing Broad, bold emphasis is mine:
“Nick wasn’t really comfortable in that [franchise QB] role. And I think there wasn’t much written about that and we’ve learned more about that since Nick has been gone … It really got to him, some of the criticism here in Philadelphia about his play last year. I heard from a couple of players that he’d get down … I understood that he’d let it get to him. I think that had to do with the decision to part with him … they felt like Nick wasn’t the guy for this team and this city.”
Interesting. I hardly think Foles being negatively impacted by criticism was the deciding factor why the Eagles moved on from him, but it could have contributed to the decision. The main reason Foles is gone, I’d argue, is because Chip Kelly felt he was a limited talent and Sam Bradford offers a bigger upside.
The concept of an athlete “not being able to handle Philadelphia because it’s tough” definitely isn’t new. There are plenty examples of this in the past. I remember people saying similar things about Flyers goalie Ilya Bryzgalov after he was ran out of town. There are other examples that don’t immediately come to mind. Personally, I don’t put a lot of stock into it. I think the real issue is a lack of talent more than anything.
July 26, 2015 at 11:04 pm #27616
bnwBlockedAs said elsewhere here can’t wait for the season to start because this reporting is pathetic.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 27, 2015 at 1:21 am #27622znModeratorthis reporting is pathetic.
What did you find pathetic? Just curious. I don’t have any stake in any of these pieces in this thread, just posting them…I just wonder what’s on your mind.
July 27, 2015 at 9:43 am #27624bnwBlockedthis reporting is pathetic.
What did you find pathetic? Just curious. I don’t have any stake in any of these pieces in this thread, just posting them…I just wonder what’s on your mind.
The chatty Cathy’s talking crap about Foles long after the trade while raising a shit storm at the time of the trade. Pathetic.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 27, 2015 at 10:18 am #27625
NERamParticipantNotaKellyfan (Eagles fan)
Last year, Foles struggled but it was not solely his fault. Foles was playing behind a makeshift line for much of his time. Lane Johnson was suspended for the first four games. So the Eagles swung Todd Herremans out of his RG spot to RT. Evan Mathis, the LG, went down with an injury in week one. Jason Kelce, the starting Center, went down with an injury in week 3. The week 4 starting line, the week the Eagles played the 49ers, was Jason Peters at LT, Matt Tobin at LG, David Molk at C, Dennis Kelly at RG and Todd Herremans at RT. Like Foles, Herremans got hurt against the Texans. Kelce came back the week prior and Mathis came back for Sanchez’s first start. Sanchez had the benefit of 4/5ths of the line for his entire tenure.
Lesean McCoy struggled mightily at certain points giving less than 20 rushing yards in two different games. Teams were rushing four guys and dropping into coverage because they were facing three, or in some cases, four backup linemen and able to get pressure.
I am not trying to excuse all of Foles’ problems last year. He did have struggles. Several of his interceptions left me surprised and the fumble against the Rams had me highly irritated. Foles did fall into a phantom pressure mode after the first month or so. He would fade backwards to avoid pressure and end up rushing a throw, which IMO came from the new QB coach attempting to force quicker decisions. I have said before I believe the phantom pressure may have had something to do with the late hit against the Redskins where I believe he was actually hurt.
Foles’ release is slower than Bradford’s. That was a definite question mark. It’s also fair game to question his deep accuracy though I would again point to the circumstances.
But all told, The Eagles were in every game with Foles even the 49ers game where he did not play well in the least. He kept the team within reach and threw what could have been a gamewinning TD if Riley Cooper had hung onto the ball. Against the Cardinals Foles threw a last second pass into the endzone which would have won the game, but Jordan Matthews could not stay in bounds.
I think he is legitimately capable of being a top ten QB and he should improve your team. I was honestly expecting Andy Reid to make another attempt at trading for him.
A couple of thoughts I have, after reading this, from someone closer to the Eagles.
First, it was good to see some specifics related to Foles off year in ’14, compared to his numbers in ’13.
Prior to this, the dropoff reasons were murky. Which, for me anyway, kept me from getting too optimistic about how the trade was gonna shake out.
So, the needle, I think, has ticked slightly upward.
Unfortunately, the Rams OL questions remain. The comments about opposing defenses getting pressure with 4 rushers because they were facing 3 or sometimes 4 backups rang a familiar bell. Believe we have seen shades of that in the past.
So, I guess I feel better about Foles now than I did previously, and continue hoping that the OL gels quickly and can keep him upright.
July 27, 2015 at 10:30 am #27626znModeratorThe chatty Cathy’s talking crap about Foles long after the trade while raising a shit storm at the time of the trade. Pathetic.
Okay. But IMO this is all just “prior to camp, where do teams stand at qb” stuff. We’re just not posting it for all 32 teams. No one is complaining about the trade or saying it was a bad one. We always knew there were questions about 2014. There’s a mix of different answers to that I think.
July 27, 2015 at 10:54 am #27627bnwBlockedThe chatty Cathy’s talking crap about Foles long after the trade while raising a shit storm at the time of the trade. Pathetic.
Okay. But IMO this is all just “prior to camp, where do teams stand at qb” stuff. We’re just not posting it for all 32 teams. No one is complaining about the trade or saying it was a bad one. We always knew there were questions about 2014. There’s a mix of different answers to that I think.
My comment was directed at the comments questioning Foles ability to do the work, to accept being coached, handling criticism and so on. The reaction at the time of the trade Philly was that they didn’t want to trade Foles. Now when he’s been out of town they want to tear him down? To what? Build up Bradford? Kelly? It’s pathetic.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 27, 2015 at 11:48 am #27628znModeratorThe chatty Cathy’s talking crap about Foles long after the trade while raising a shit storm at the time of the trade. Pathetic.
Okay. But IMO this is all just “prior to camp, where do teams stand at qb” stuff. We’re just not posting it for all 32 teams. No one is complaining about the trade or saying it was a bad one. We always knew there were questions about 2014. There’s a mix of different answers to that I think.
My comment was directed at the comments questioning Foles ability to do the work, to accept being coached, handling criticism and so on. The reaction at the time of the trade Philly was that they didn’t want to trade Foles. Now when he’s been out of town they want to tear him down? To what? Build up Bradford? Kelly? It’s pathetic.
No one said he couldn’t or didn’t do the work. They did say he didn’t take well to tough coaching, but that apparently has to do more with one coach (the qb coach). I have no reason to doubt that, and I also don’t think it’s a big deal—I gather the issue was that one qb coach, not coachING in general. Sounds like a style clash with one qb coach. We do know that Kelly soured on Foles during the season…that was reported during the season. Foles was never Kelly’s guy IMO. In fact the Eagles fan I posted in this thread who doesn’t like Kelly makes that clear.
My take on all of this is that Foles wasn’t as good a fit in Phil as he will be in St. Louis.
I have no stakes in the Kelly game. If people don’t like him, that’s fine with me.
.
July 27, 2015 at 2:46 pm #27635
rflParticipantI guess I was disappointed in the focus on whether Foles could stand the heat in the Philly kitchen. That doesn’t really interest me very much.
I would be much more interested in having a qualified pundit or analyst look at the fit between Foles and the Kelly offense. And then again at the fit with what he is likely to experience with us.
By virtue of the absurd ...
July 27, 2015 at 4:17 pm #27639
snowmanParticipantRFL, I read somewhere that Foles would be a good fit for our offense because he is very good at selling play action and making accurate passes in short to medium routes. This might not be realized until the latter half of the season when Gurley is healthy enough to play regularly, but I hope it’s true.
July 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm #27640rflParticipantRFL, I read somewhere that Foles would be a good fit for our offense because he is very good at selling play action and making accurate passes in short to medium routes. This might not be realized until the latter half of the season when Gurley is healthy enough to play regularly, but I hope it’s true.
Yeah, Man, I’ve heard that too. It makes sense to me on a sort of impressionistic basis. I have hopes for it.
But I am not aware of much in-depth analysis of it. And when I see a headline talking about “fit,” or I see an article claiming Kelly didn’t like Foles as his QB, I wish we’d get some substance.
But, then, it is our commercial media, and any expectations of substance are pretty foolish on my part.
By virtue of the absurd ...
July 27, 2015 at 5:37 pm #27644znModeratorRFL, I read somewhere that Foles would be a good fit for our offense because he is very good at selling play action and making accurate passes in short to medium routes.
I don’t think any article said that.
Actually we posters here have been saying that.
July 27, 2015 at 6:14 pm #27647snowmanParticipantYeah, I could have been reading posters here about that. I seem to remember an article or two about how successful he was in play action with the Eagles, but we shall see how much of that he does in this offense.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
